If God doesn’t exist, or has no effect, nobody owes anybody, or thing, anything at all. Our morality and sense of obligation are qualities that have evolved because they have survival benefit. There is no decreed morality. For example moral behavior can seem pretty bizarre in other species. The female praying mantis eats her mate. He provides nutrients for his offspring by donating his life to the procreation effort. It works.

You asked where is the justice of childhood cancer? If children have a right to cancer free lives, then there is no justice.

Does your question assume that god owes children protection from cancer? And what’s with the distinction between children and adults?

Generally, seems the atheist will view god owing man the duty while the theist views man owing god the duty. Is this a fair generalization?

student

No, this is not a fair generalization. Atheists do not view god as owing man duty, because atheists do not believe in god. I know this is hard for a theist understand, but just imagine not believing in the Tooth Fairy. Go ahead, give it a few seconds. Think about it. Got it?

Good. That is how atheists view god.

I, and other atheists, raise the problem of childhood cancer because the Christian god is supposed to be all loving and all powerful, yet all manner of bad things happen daily. This is known as The Problem of Evil.

I will ignore the distinction between children and adults because it is a red herring and will serve only to derail the conversation. Nice try though.

Signature

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

You mentioned The Problem of Evil. If god existed, would god owe man a duty to eliminate evil?

You are correct to ignore the distinction between children and adults. The distinction was humor, not red herring. My humor may be off color, confusing, or (in this case) too subtle. Thank you for tolerating.

Considering Jeciron’s comments, is atheism a survival of the fittest or biggest stick wins practical view?

You mentioned The Problem of Evil. If god existed, would god owe man a duty to eliminate evil?

Of course. According the Judeo-Christian mythology god created mankind. God is also supposedly all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful. This means god created mankind knowing full well the vast majority of people would spend eternity in Hell, which makes the Judeo-Christian god the biggest mass murderer of all time, and by far the worst parent imaginable. Any all-knowing, all-powerful god who deliberately sends people to Hell is evil. Back here on Earth, this alleged god could easily eliminate suffering, but chooses not to do so. This is not a characteristic of a loving god or even a normal parent.

Considering Jeciron’s comments, is atheism a survival of the fittest or biggest stick wins practical view?

student

Jeciron was discussing morality. Atheism is not a moral view, it is simple the lack of belief in a supernatural god.

Student, your questions show a severe lack of thinking through these issues. You keep conflating atheism with morality, and placing false dichotomies in your questions. You need to read some philosophy to help you understand how we can create moral systems without depending on mythologies handed down from more than 2,000 years ago.

I was discussing morality, because it seems to me that what we call morality is based on a sense of obligation, or at least so tied to our sense of obligation that it is difficult for me to separate the two. We all feel or at least usually recognize the obligation to act morally. Theists conjecture that our sense of obligation comes from some sort of contract with a conscious God. Basically stated, “if I act morally, (meaning in accordance with what I accept to be God’s rules), then I will be allowed into Heaven. To get into Heaven I am obliged to act morally.”

I can understand the theists concern, that without God there is no reason to act morally. But, all the sane devotees of all the various religions feel some sort of moral obligation as do all sane atheists. That implies, very strongly, that our moral sense is not derived from the commandments of the Judeo-Christian God, but instead is a phenomenon related to our social evolution. Clearly it is a complex phenomenon, but just as clearly it exists. I doubt there is any simple explanation for our sense of morality, but to claim one cannot have a moral sense without believing in a particular god is clearly untrue.

You suggested answering why not. Your question is better. Thank you. Why would god not owe man a duty to eliminate evil? Assuming man is the source of the evil (open to debate), man may just be getting what man deserves. Arguably, this answer (along with many others deficiencies you may find) leads us off topic.

You suggested answering why not. Your question is better. Thank you. Why would god not owe man a duty to eliminate evil? Assuming man is the source of the evil (open to debate), man may just be getting what man deserves. Arguably, this answer (along with many others deficiencies you may find) leads us off topic.

Science is not required to prove the existence of god anymore than it is required to prove the existence of the greek gods or the tooth fairy. Science is only concerned with ideas and theories which are testable and therefor disprovable. The idea of god is inherently not disprovable since everything about this proposed entity from his location to his mass, age, appearance etc are left as unknowable. The existence of god is not scientific question as science can neither prove nor disprove the claim. Those who are comfortable believing in something for which their is no evidence may believe in god. For the rest of us it is a non issue.

student - 17 July 2012 08:44 PM

Few question theism requires at least some faith. Does atheism claim no faith is required?

student

You have to define how you are using the word faith. I have known my wife for 30 years. She makes the most amazing chicken parmesan. I have faith that the next time she makes it it will be out of this world as always. That is faith based on experience. Everyone has that sort of faith and uses it daily. Scientists have uncovered explanations for many things in this universe that were once a great mystery. People used to think that Zeus threw lightening bolts down from Mt Olympus but we now have a much better understanding of how lightening actually occurs. The scientific method has allowed us to unravel a thousand unknowns about the universe around us so most of us have “faith” that with continued work we will eventually figure out much of how the universe works. That faith is again based on experience and a proven track record that science has succeeded before and there is no reason to expect it not to succeed in the future given enough time, resources, and intelligence.

Religious faith is an entirely different thing and something atheists generally do not accept. The idea of having blind faith in something for no good reason makes no logical sense. If someone told you the rock in their hand harbored an all powerful being who could do miraculous things would you accept that without proof? Then why do you accept the existence of a god for which no proof exists. There is no logical reason to do so and having such faith stands in the way of discovering the truth about the word around us. So if your question is “do atheists have blind faith in anything” the answer for me is absolutely not and I would think most atheists would answer the same way.

Signature

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Your comments about god and science probably explains why theists say they have faith in god and not that they have proof in god.

You asked how I use the word faith. Faith seemed like the point where objective facts/science left off and ended where the conclusion started. My concept of faith may be too broad and singular. I had not partitioned faith into different compartments.

Your comments about god and science probably explains why theists say they have faith in god and not that they have proof in god.

You asked how I use the word faith. Faith seemed like the point where objective facts/science left off and ended where the conclusion started. My concept of faith may be too broad and singular. I had not partitioned faith into different compartments.

student

You are right. The broadest definition of faith is a belief in something despite the lack of absolute proof. The difference is that Atheists only have faith in things when there is substantial empirical evidence to support their conclusion/faith ie. If we do something a 1000 times and get the same result we can have can reach a reasonable conclusion ( or have faith) that the 1001th time we do it we will get the same result. Theists are willing to believe in something despite the absolute lack of ANY evidence.

The problem with the theists approach is that by definition nothing is out of bounds. If I say that a small invisible undetectable man ( or the FSM) lives in the rock under my deck they should believe that as easily as they believe in their own god since neither is disprovable and neither has any supporting evidence. They of course point to thousands of years of history and old books as “evidence” but just because lots of people over many years have believed in something silly doesn’t make it any closer to being true if they have no evidence to back up those beliefs.